alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1886 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1886

                  For the relief of John Wesley Davis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 1995

   Mr. Wynn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of John Wesley Davis.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.

    The time limitations set forth in section 3702(b) of title 31, 
United States Code, shall not apply with respect to a claim by John 
Wesley Davis, of Forestville, Maryland, for the amounts due to him by 
the--
            (1) Department of Veterans Affairs in the amount of 
        $6,296.00;
            (2) Department of the Navy in the amount of $42,123.84;
            (3) Department of the Treasury in the amount of $12,508.20; 
        and
            (4) District of Columbia in the amount of $174.97 for local 
        tax refund.
The amounts due are represented by checks that were received but not 
negotiated by John Wesley Davis.

SEC. 2. DEADLINE.

    Section 1 shall apply only if John Wesley Davis or his authorized 
representative submits a claim pursuant to such subsection before the 
expiration of the 6-month period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 373 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 20, 2002.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3924) to authorize telecommuting for Federal contractors. The first 
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. During consideration of the 
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 
has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10045 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VINCENT ROCHEL LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:93-CR-29-15

- - - - - - - - - - December 14, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Vincent Rochel Lewis, federal prisoner # 60694-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e) motion for return of property. Lewis seeks the return of $135,000 in United States currency seized on May 15, 1993. Lewis argues that his right to due process was violated because he received no notice or hearing of forfeiture. Rule 41(e) provides a procedural vehicle for a property owner to seek return of his property seized by the Government. See Industrias Cardoen, Ltda. v. United States , 983 F.2d 49, 512

(5th Cir. 1993). Rule 41(e) is a rule of criminal procedure, however, and is not applicable to civil forfeiture proceedings. See United States v. Hernandez , 911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir. 1990); Fed. R. Crim. P. 54(b)(5). We construe pro se pleadings liberally as seeking the proper remedy. United States v. Santora , 711 F.2d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Lewis’s motion is construed as a civil complaint for the return of property. See United States v. Robinson , 78 F.3d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1996). Lewis is not entitled to the return of the $135,000 because he has not established that he had a lawful interest in the currency that was seized. The district court did not err in denying Lewis’s motion. AFFIRMED.
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 1:21 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: I Oppose the Fiduciary Rule for Good Reason

September 19, 2015

I oppose the Proposed Fiduciary Rule for the best reason there it. It gives 

slimy attorneys a field day for generating big fat law suits. You would be 

playing right into their hands and creating misery for countless good agents 

in our industry.

I was a victim of three unjust arbitrations. Each sought recovery by citing 

that I was among other things their acting fiduciary. In each case, I was 

not. This weakened their case in all three cases and weakened claims that 

never should have been made. Still this put me into unemployment for 23 

months I the securities industry because by broker dealer went out of 

business, and I was left with no insurance and no new broker dealer would 

hire me until it was all over! It nearly bankrupted me.

Sadly, I discovered that arbitrations are all about extortion; Clients and 

their attorneys seeking to convert the worst cataclysmic meltdown of our 

financial system since the Great Depression, being the agents fault. The 

agents fault? Like we are supposed to have seen it coming or should have 

known more that everyone on Wallstreet and in Washington DC?

This next collapse will be far worse and will likely be triggered by 

derivatives which will likely wreak havoc on every type of investment 

imaginable. When that happens, Greedy Attorneys from hell will file tens of 

thousands or hundreds of thousands of law suits/arbitrations all across the 

country, against a large number of wonderful securities and insurance 

agents who were already working hard in their clients best interest.

If you think you are helping the client out there, you are not. Yes a few will 

be better served but the impact of this would hurt far more than you are 

trying to help. Please consider the devastating impact on the good agents 

and their wives and children.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, October 12, 1995 (127), Para 127.19 Subpoena]
[Page 1513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.127.19  subpoena

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. LaHOOD, laid before the House a 
communication, which was read as follows:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                 Washington, DC, October 12, 1995.
       Dear Mr. Speaker, This is to formally notify you pursuant 
     to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that Bill Jarrell, 
     my Deputy Chief of Staff, has been served with a subpoena 
     issued by the United States Justice Department. This subpoena 
     relates to his previous employment by a former Member of the 
     House.
       After consultation with the General Counsel, I have 
     determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent 
     with the privileges and precedents of the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Tom DeLay,
                                              Member of Congress.
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, November 6, 1995 (140), Para 140.4 Message from the Senate]
[Page 1873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.140.4  message from the senate

  A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed with an amendment a bill of the 
House of the following title:

       H.R. 436. An Act to require the head of any Federal agency 
     to differentiate between fats, oils, and greases of animal, 
     marine, or vegetable origin, and other oils and greases, in 
     issuing certain regulations, and for other purposes.

  The message also announced that the Senate had passed a bill of the 
following title, in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

       S. 1097. An Act to designate the Federal building located 
     at 1550 Dewey Avenue, Baker City, OR, as the ``David J. 
     Wheeler Federal Building,'' and for other purposes.

  The message also announced that pursuant to section 8002 of title 26, 
United States Code, the Chair, on behalf of the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, announces a change in the membership of the Joint Committee 
on Taxation. Mr. Chafee has been added to the Joint Committee. Therefore 
the membership of the Joint Committee on Taxation is as follows: Mr. 
Roth, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Moynihan, and Mr. Baucus.
```
#### Robert Gilbert, Respondent, v. John B. Manning, Appellant.

Judgment reversed and now trial ordered in Erie county, costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Corlett, J.
Exhibit 21

            Registrant and Subsidiaries of the Registrant



                                                     Percent of Voting
                                       State of      Securities Owned
                                     Incorporation   By the Registrant

Coachmen Industries, Inc.               Indiana         Registrant
The Lux Co., Inc.                       Indiana            100%
Michiana Easy Livin' Country, Inc.      Indiana            100%
All American Homes, Inc.                Indiana            100%
Coachmen Foreign Sales Corporation      Indiana            100%
Clarion Motors Corporation              Indiana            100%
Viking Recreational Vehicles, Inc.      Michigan           100%
Northwoods RV Country, Inc.             Michigan           100%
Coachmen Industries of Texas, Inc.      Texas              100%
Coachmen Industries of Oregon, Inc.     Oregon             100%
Coachmen Industries of California, Inc. California         100%
Freeway Easy Livin' Country, Inc.       California         100%
Gulf Coast Easy Livin' Country, Inc.    Florida            100%
Travel Owners Life Insurance Company    Arizona            100%
Rover, Inc.                             Ohio               100%
All American Homes of Iowa, Inc.        Iowa               100%
Southern Ambulance Builders, Inc.       Georgia            100%
Colfax Country RV, Inc.                 North Carolina     100%
Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc.                  Michigan           100%
All American Homes of
     North Carolina, Inc.               North Carolina     100%
All American Homes of Tennessee, Inc.   Tennessee          100%




All of the Registrant's active subsidiaries are included in the Company's
consolidated financial statements (Travel Owners Life Insurance Company,
a credit life insurance subsidiary, is accounted for by the equity method,
and is not material to the consolidated financial statements).
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 57136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18063]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Innovation and Technology Ecosystems; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Proposal Review Panel for Innovation and 
Technology Ecosystems (#84685)--Michigan State University Site Visit.
    Date and Time: September 11, 2023; 2:00 p.m.-6:30 p.m.; September 
12, 2023; 8:30 a.m.-7:45 p.m. September 13, 2023; 8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.
    Place: Douglas Meijer Medical Building--109 Michigan St NW, Grand 
Rapids, MI 49503 (Floors 4 & 7).
    Tour Location: Kent County Recycling & Education Center--977 
Wealthy Street SW, Grand Rapids, MI 49504.
    Type of Meeting: Part-open.
    Contact Persons: Michal Ziv-El, Program Director, National Science 
Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; 
Telephone (703) 292-4926.
    Purpose of Meeting: NSF site visit to provide advice and 
recommendations concerning the progress and future activities of the 
projects that are one year into two-year awards.

Agenda

September 11, 2023

2:00 p.m.-4:15 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)
4:15 p.m.-6:30 p.m.--Tour of Kent County Recycling & Education Center 
(Open)

September 12, 2023

8:30 a.m.-7:45 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)

September 13, 2023

8:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m.--Executive Sessions (Closed)

    Reason for Closing: Topics to be discussed and evaluated during 
closed portions of the site review will include information of a 
proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; 
and information on personnel. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: August 17, 2023.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-18063 Filed 8-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
one een ene WILLIAM (BILL) F.. PEED FRE R were
3036 Churchill Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53713 (608 / 273-3824 )

September 20, 2015

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

ATTN.: CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULE, Room N-5655
U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW,

Washington DC 20210

Subject: Citizen Taxpayer Comment
Re - Proposed Rules published in the Monday April 20, 2015 Federal Register
(Vol. 80, No. 75, Part Ill, pages 21928 through 22042)
Affecting - 29 CFR 2509 & 2510 re “Fiduciary: Conflict of Interest Rule - Retirement Investment Advice”, and
29 CFR 2550 re “Proposed Best Interest Contract Exemption”
Authorization - Public Law 93-406 (ERISA) September 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 829
Codification - 29 U.S.C. 1001

Dear Public Servant(s):

Based upon my understanding of the Proposed Rules (seven (7) in total), this is to inform you that | am OPPOSED!!! to
the Proposed Rules.

The principal reasons for my opposition are:

1) The Rules would end my ability to invest in listed options in my IRA (Ref. F.R. page 21987).

2) The Rules do not make a distinction between fee-based “managed” IRA accounts and self-directed IRA accounts.

3) The Rules would make my brokerage firm a fiduciary for my IRA account simply because they make available to me
as an IRA account owner, tools, research information, and educational resources, that the Rules view as “advice”,
thereby making the IRA account a “broker advised” IRA account, and subject to fiduciary requirements.

This is to request / direct the Agency to change the text of the Proposed Rules to ,

1) Allow all self-directed IRA account owners to invest in listed options in their IRA accounts, and

2) Define the fiduciary relationship as one that only exists when the brokerage firm specifically and overtly decides
what investment product to buy and when, and when to sell them, and consumates those transactions for and on
behalf of the IRA account owner with express and prior written authorization from the IRA account owner; only then is
an IRA account a “broker advised” one; a brokerage firm simply offering / making available to IRA account owners
tools, research information, and educational resources, shall not constitute a “broker advised” IRA account subject to

fiduciary requirements.

By copy of this,letter to Wisconsin U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, | request him to assure my requests made in the above
paragraph are fulfilled.

In conclusion, | expect my government to write Federal Administration Law that does not restrict my freedom and right of
self-determination to make my own IRA investment decisions, including deciding to invest or not in options investments
in my IRA account, which are currently allowed; there is no reason to disallow options in IRA’s just because the Fiduciary
rules are being re-written to a “best interest” basis. There is no fiduciary relationship in a self-directed IRA account!

Sincerely,

i) Main Fe fe okfen

William (Bill) F. Pfeiffer

Copy to U.S. Senator Ron Johnson, 328 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington DC 20510 (202 / 224-5323 )
#### In the Matter of Daniel W. Schoonmaker.—

Decree affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 20, 2010

p1213 

# Order

December 20, 2010

141650

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141650 COA: 298077 Macomb CC: 08-003323-FH BOBBY RAY HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT
32





FACT
CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of FACT Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jacqueline
Danforth, as President, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The
information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      November 20, 2009
            By:
            /s/Jacqueline
      DanforthName:
      Jacqueline DanforthTitle:
      President (Principal Executive Officer) and Principal Financial
      Officer


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the
United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.)
§ 511.12 Answer. ( a ) *Time for filing.* A respondent shall have twenty (20) days after service of a complaint within which to file an answer.
( b ) *Content of answer.* An answer shall conform to the following: ( 1 ) *Request for hearing.* Respondent shall state whether it requests a full, adjudicatory hearing or whether it desires to proceed on the basis of written submissions. If a hearing is requested, respondent shall specify those issues on which a hearing is desired.
( 2 ) *Contested allegations.* An answer in which the allegations of a complaint are contested shall contain: ( i ) Specific admission or denial of each allegation in the complaint. If the respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, respondent shall so state. Such a statement shall have the effect of a denial. Denials shall fairly meet the substance of the allegations denied. Allegations not thus answered shall be deemed to have been admitted.
( ii ) A concise statement of the factual and/or legal defenses to each allegation of the complaint.
( 3 ) *Admitted allegations.* If the respondent admits or fails to deny any factual allegation, he or she shall be deemed to have waived a hearing as to such allegation.
( c ) *Default.* Failure of the respondent to file an answer within the time provided (or within an extended time, if provided), shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations set forth in the complaint and to authorize the Presiding Officer to make such findings of fact as are reasonable under the circumstances.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1480.html[7/23/2015 11:48:08 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvo-5put

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1480

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Sarah R.

General Comment

Leave what does not belong to you alone.

You are not omniscient. You are not omnipotent.

Leave the funding I, my spouse, my children, my friends, my co-workers, and anyone else chooses to save for

 the later years of our lives alone. 

The fact that the MANDATORY contributions to Social Security and Medicare in paychecks has been

 misappropriated and spend through the General Fund shows that there is a major CONFLICT of INTEREST in

 this area of regulations.

Given that historical mismanagement and bad judgement, do not interfere with the current arrangement and

 control individuals have in their 401(k) and IRA set-ups.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0633.html[7/21/2015 7:36:02 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-x1pe

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0633

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I'm smart enough to plan for my own retirement. I don't need government regulations that would restrict how I

 use my own money for my retirement.